Posted by Peregrine Guardian on February 10, 19101 at 17:45:38:
In Reply to: Re: SELECTIVE REASONING posted by Daniel on February 10, 19101 at 15:10:37:
You haven't answered my questions but I would like to address the points you made all the same.
Daniel: "A physicist's examination of the atoms of the body would show no difference between its atoms and a rock's atoms. They are identical."
I agree with you but the findings of the physicist would not be indicative of anything until we first had an answer to our question. The problem is that the fact that there is no difference between the atoms of a rock and the atoms of a human body is exactly what we would expect in both scenarios.
If life is nothing more than a purely physical phenomenon, arising when a "specific structure" has been acheived and disappearing in another, then the findings of the physicist would coincide with this fact. However,...
If life were more than a mere physical phenomenon, then we would, again, not expect the physicists methods to turn up any difference between the atoms of a body and a rock either. In that case, the physicist isn't exactly qualified to deal with a "non-natural" or "supernatural" phenomenon.
Thus, we must first know the answer to our dilemma before we can glean anything from the example you gave.
Daniel: "I would like to know what evidence you have that there is a difference between the composition of a rock and the composition of our body besides the arrangement and selection of its atoms. You seem to be rather insistent that we need evidence whereas you have supplied none."
Well, I never said, nor do I believe, that there is a difference between "the composition of a rock and... our body," (atomically speaking). There would hardly be a difference in the atomical composition even if life were not purely physical.
As for evidence, it is up to you to demonstrate this "arrangement," that you have insisted exists. Your metaphysical claims are in the minority and need to be supported. My claims reflect common experience. Life does not come from non-living matter. If you wish to attack our common experiences, then please provide some evidence.
I think that the point which strikes me most is that you (Q also) denounce the belief in the supernatural on the grounds that it "lacks evidence." You must admit that you would ignore a claim that went entirely unsupported but which only replied to requests for evidence with evasions such as, "Well, you haven't put up any evidence either."
My position is supported by common experience, so much so that it is a recognized scientific law. The past notions of a lifeless material source of life were repudiated. It is ironic to watch two individuals who are so selective that they will refuse to acknowledge the validity of any claim which "lacks evidence," until their own beliefs fall under this description--two individuals who would support the validity of a scientific law so long as the law is in their favor, but who ignore these laws when they become inconvenient.
Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein would often jest, half-seriously, that "When a known fact comes into conflict with a cherished theory, then it's so much the worse for the fact."
If it is wrong to adhere to a belief which "lacks evidence" to support it, then your own stance falls to pieces. If theists are "irrational" because they adhere to a belief that seems to go against what you would consider to be "common sense," then certainly the notion that life comes from "non-life" should be deemed "irrational."
We can (and should) continue discussing whether theism and Christianity in particular are supported by any evidence (and they are), but it is at once obvious that your claim is not.
Is there anything at all which might constitute evidence of the notion that life arises from "non-life"? Anything that I am unaware of?
If not, then I am well within the dictates of reason in calling such an idea a fanciful tale. In that case, your "lack of belief" for reasons which do not seem to dissuade you from naturalism is irresponsible.
There is something else that I wish to know... Would you be willing to agree that you have no more value, no more meaning or worth than a stone, which seems similar to man in the ways you describe?
Do you believe that the similarity of the particles which go into making a human being and a stone summarize the whole of each? This seems to be your logic each time that you point to this similarity as if it is indicative of anything but the simple fact that, in this at least, the two are similar.
Can the secret of man be found within a stone?
I await your response, Daniel.